4.  The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bludenz, the second applicant was born 1940 and lives in Bürs.
5.  The applicants are owners of a painting company in Bürs. The first applicant is also the sole owner of another company.
6.  On 15 July 1997 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority informed the applicants of its suspicion that they had illegally employed C., a Turkish citizen, on 19 June 1997. It invited the applicants either to comment in writing or to make an appointment with the authority for an oral justification within two weeks.
7.  On 11 September 1997 the applicants replied to the District Administrative Authority by referring in essence to the Association Agreement between the European Community and Turkey (decree no. 1/80 of the Association Council). Stating that C. had therefore been employed in conformity with European Law standards, they objected to the allegations made by the Administrative Authority.
8.  On 4 December 1997 the applicants again filed submissions. Referring to comments by the Regional Employment Office, they repeated their position that C.’s employment had been in conformity with EU law at the relevant time.
9.  On 22 March 1999 the Bludenz District Administrative Authority imposed a fine of 15,000 Austrian schilling (ATS), equivalent to 1,090.09 Euro (EUR), on each of the applicants for breach of the Employment of Foreigners Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz).
10.  On 23 March 1999 the same authority imposed a further fine (10,000 ATS equivalent to EUR 727) on the first applicant, after having informed him about its suspicion on 1 September 1998 that he had illegally employed C. on 26 August 1998 for the first applicant’s company.
11.  On 6 and 7 April 1999 respectively the applicants filed appeals to the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungs-senat, IAP), submitting that the District Authority’s decisions were contrary to the mentioned Association Agreement between the European Community and Turkey and furthermore in breach of the Employment of Foreigners Act.
12.  Having held an oral hearing on 17 June 1999, the IAP dismissed the applicants’ appeal on 9 November 1999. It found that C. did not have a work permit (Arbeitserlaubnis) or an exemption certificate (Befreiungs-schein) at the relevant dates. Therefore he was not entitled to work, neither under Austrian nor under European Law.
13.  On 17 January 2000 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They submitted, inter alia, that the wording of the relevant provision of the Association Agreement lacked sufficient clarity and precision and would therefore be in breach of Article 7 of the Convention. Moreover they alleged that the IAP would not meet the criteria of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 as its members acted both as judge and prosecutor.
14.  On 6 March 2000 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicants’ complaint for lack of prospect of success and referred it to the Administrative Court.
15.  On 29 June 2000 the latter requested the applicants to supplement their complaint.
16.  On 17 August 2000 the applicants made submissions concerning allegedly inadequate interpretation of law.
17.  According to the Government, the Administrative Court invited the IAP to file observations on each of the three complaints. It appears that the authority submitted comments, which were sent to the applicants’ counsel on 7 November 2000. According to the applicants, neither the Administrative Court’s invitation, nor the statements made by the IAP were brought to their knowledge.
18.  On 24 April 2003 the Administrative Court, holding that the applicants’ submissions were unfounded, dismissed the complaint. Furthermore, it referred to the Administrative Court Act, which required the Administrative Court to examine the contested decision on the basis of the facts found by the respondent authority, and thus did not allow for the raising of new issues which had not previously been dealt with by the administrative authorities (Neuerungsverbot). The judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on 26 May 2003.